questing gm
First Post
Good find on the rule! That certainly does change my interpretation that positioning does matter.
D&D 5E Firing Into A Melee
- Thread starter Mad Zagyg
- Start date
Good find on the rule! That certainly does change my interpretation that positioning does matter.
Tony Vargas
Legend
5e is 'meant' to eschew grids and figures in favor of the OneTrueWay of TotM, so you're already in wrongbadfun territory. ;P
Seriously, though, 5e does avoid precise rules like this in the basic game with the intent of keeping it simple enough that you don't need to know whether anyone is positioned to have angles or lines of effect like that. You may get some rules of this nature in the DMG. As long as you can keep track of which 3 PCs are in melee, and how far away the two archers are, you're fine.
Rather than checking lines, just make a ruling as to whether cover applies.
Sir Brennen
Legend
How about this for a bit of a dynamic option: Apply the +2 AC cover across the board. On your turn, you can try an maneuver for a better shot (i.e., the target doesn't get the cover bonus) for ranged attacks if you change position by over half your movement from your original starting position before attacking. This must be done each turn you want to avoid the cover bonus for other creatures in melee.
Ilbranteloth
Explorer
This is something that each game needs to determine, but I've always liked including the possibility of friendly fire.
I was thinking of using the +2 to AC with cover, and if the miss is within that penalty and the roll is high enough to hit the other combatant that's providing the cover, it hits them instead.
However, the idea of throwing in disadvantage already supplies you with a second d20 that could be a to-hit roll for the other combatant in the event the lower roll misses the intended target.
In fact, with that rule you could skip the cover modifier and just go with Disadvantage, and if the lower roll misses the target, the higher roll is used against the other combatant.
Randy
I was thinking of using the +2 to AC with cover, and if the miss is within that penalty and the roll is high enough to hit the other combatant that's providing the cover, it hits them instead.
However, the idea of throwing in disadvantage already supplies you with a second d20 that could be a to-hit roll for the other combatant in the event the lower roll misses the intended target.
In fact, with that rule you could skip the cover modifier and just go with Disadvantage, and if the lower roll misses the target, the higher roll is used against the other combatant.
Randy
I tried to off-the-cuff include friendly fire in our starter set 5e game but it was not working out well. I figured if you missed by 1 or 2 that meant it was a result of the +2 cover so there was a chance to hit the ally in melee. The problem was the monsters ac was more than 2 lower than the front line fighters so unless I made the archer re-roll the attack against the fighter there was no chance the fighter would ever be hit, just annoyed by a near miss. And re-rolling seemed peevish for a circumstance that is going to come up pretty often. And in theory the ally should also get the cover bonus because they are also in the fight.
Juriel
First Post
But... it doesn't eschew anything? The only difference between it and 3e/4e combat is lack of flanking rules. 5e is still full of minutia, and the whole 'other people give you cover' + 'you need to be on the opposite side of cover to benefit from it' means this is exactly the kind of precise rule you have to track somehow (or ask your GM every 5ft if you can now shoot someone without penalty).
While I like making ranged attacks against melee people harder (because melee warriors are already the poor kids of the block), we just couldn't be bothered with this whole shebang, and just got rid of cover rules entirely. You have dis/advantage, or nothing, done.
TheTrevdor
First Post
Actually came here looking for more information about this same dilemma. Honestly, after looking over the PHB, it seems as though there really isn't any kind of ruling against firing into combat, and the only thing that really seems to affect firing into combat is the notion of cover, which would be 1/2 cover or maybe 3/4 cover, but that cover would seem to not hold up if you were to position yourself strategically so that you might make a clean shot.
And honestly? I hate any kind of firing into combat rule. Not only do I think it's dumb in a game that is meant to boast heroic feats of awesomeness, but it totally murders the utility of ranged combatants. I had a huge problem with this in Pathfinder, since my character literally couldn't do anything because of the way that game treated ranged combat. Moreover, much of the fantasy literature and film that this game emulates so often is full of combat scenes where the heroes are firing into melee combat swiftly and cleanly, and that's the sort of thing I like to see encouraged. If you want to apply a +2 bonus to a creatures AC for half cover, then that seems reasonable (to a point), but there's no reason why an archer shouldn't be able to move around on the battlefield to find a clean shot. And that should be it: "Can you see it? Is it in range? Then fire." And if you want to apply a quick "half-cover" or "three-quarters cover" because the archer is directly behind a friendly, then that seems reasonable. But applying a penalty to EVERY ranged combatant when they are specifically built to hit things far away from them, regardless of what they are doing, defeats the entire purpose of having a ranged combatant in the first place!
And honestly? I hate any kind of firing into combat rule. Not only do I think it's dumb in a game that is meant to boast heroic feats of awesomeness, but it totally murders the utility of ranged combatants. I had a huge problem with this in Pathfinder, since my character literally couldn't do anything because of the way that game treated ranged combat. Moreover, much of the fantasy literature and film that this game emulates so often is full of combat scenes where the heroes are firing into melee combat swiftly and cleanly, and that's the sort of thing I like to see encouraged. If you want to apply a +2 bonus to a creatures AC for half cover, then that seems reasonable (to a point), but there's no reason why an archer shouldn't be able to move around on the battlefield to find a clean shot. And that should be it: "Can you see it? Is it in range? Then fire." And if you want to apply a quick "half-cover" or "three-quarters cover" because the archer is directly behind a friendly, then that seems reasonable. But applying a penalty to EVERY ranged combatant when they are specifically built to hit things far away from them, regardless of what they are doing, defeats the entire purpose of having a ranged combatant in the first place!
emmylovely
First Post
HI mates
i was playing a Dragon games in which it is very big and powerful to defeat.
i was playing a Dragon games in which it is very big and powerful to defeat.
Bare in mind that you can move and have all your attacks, so in open spaces if another character counts as cover, it pretty much means in 95% of cases that you as the archer decided not to line up a better shot. Of course in closed spaces you are going to have more issues.
Similar Threads
